29 Lawrence Road
Point Lonsdale Vic 3225
Monday,
June 6, 2005
Professor
Richard Larkins AO
Vice-Chancellor
and President
Monash
University Vic 3168
Dear
Richard:
Re: University Development and Alumni
Form Letter 30 May 2005
This
is to reply to your opening sentence and to simply inform you that your
confident expectation is misplaced. I am most definitely unsure about whether I
can be proud of "how far Monash has come … since 1964". As an Arts
graduate from 1972 I am on the Alumni roll. I also taught in the Arts Faculty
from 1991 until 1998.
Two
weeks ago I received Issue 15 of Monash Magazine and the article
"Stem cells: the debate continues" does concern me very much. Now,
your form letter deepens that worry, because it provides an official
"CEO's nod" to the views of Professor Trounson on stem-cell research.
You enjoin me to be proud of the fact that Monash has recently opened the
"world's largest stem-cell research facility". That is my problem.
Monash, in my considered opinion, is now part of a serious betrayal of public
trust. This I should explain.
Professor
Trounson writes that "scientists are unanimous in their opposition to any
cloning that intends to produce a new human being" but what he
omits from his account is what he wasn't prepared to tell the country during
the previous nation-splitting debate over embryonic stem-cell research. His
colleague in the Netherlands, Dr Christine Mummery, is on the public record in
that country revealing that the EC ban on cloning would not hinder her research
because she was then importing embryos from Australia. This was well before the
Review of the Prohibition of Human Cloning Act 2002; in fact it was well known
in the Netherlands long before the current Prime Minister and the Premiers of
Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria informed this country that they had
decided we had to have legislation to allow research on "spares".
Could it be that Professor Trounson did not know that this was already taking
place?
The
sad fact, Vice-Chancellor, is that your support for Professor Trounson's
article simply confirms University approval in a public way and it is hard for
me to see how this is not a serious deceit. For the plain fact of the matter is
that there were no import or export controls on human embryos at the time the
previous debate was launched, when Professor Trounson was busy contributing to
the debate and saying why the legislation was necessary. The Federal and State
Governments and Monash University were thus already providing in principle
support to embryonic stem-cell research overseas before they succeeded in
having it made legal here in Australia. But this was not and has not been
revealed in the debate thus far. And so, it is simply deceitful to suggest that
Monash is in the forefront of "continuing the debate". Its officers
have failed to uphold the University's fiduciary responsibility in this matter
and have stifled the debate where it needs to be generated. This is a shameful
and unjust departure from the public standards that should always be applied to
scientific research.
These
facts can be very easily verified. And that being the case you will understand
why it is no longer clear to me what path Monash thinks it is traveling on.
Monash needs to reconsider its position and should not too easily take pride in
this much vaunted development.
Yours
faithfully,
Bruce
C Wearne BA(1972) MSocSc (Waikato NZ 1978) PhD (La Trobe 1986)
Reply:
June
16 2005
Dear
Dr Wearne
Re: University Development and
Alumni Form Letter 30 May 2005
Thank you
for your letter of 6 June. Obviously the matters that you refer are highly
controversial, and there will be different views not only about the
appropriateness of research on embryonic stem cells but also on the
interpretation of matters which occurred before the prohibition of Human
Cloning Act 2002.
I
believe that Professor Trounson has been consistent in his view opposing
cloning with the intention to produce a new human being, and I do not believe
that any of his actions prior to 2002 were inconsistent with this. I am
therefore not aware of the nature of any "deceit" which you refer.
I
totally respect your right to have your own views on this important matter.
Yours
sincerely,
Richard
Larkins
_____________________________________________________________________________________
July 13,
2005
Dear
Vice-Chancellor:
Re: University Development and Alumni
Form Letter 30 May 2005
Thank-you
for your reply of 16 June to my letter of 6 June (copies enclosed). I
appreciate the respectful tone, but I have to say it did not meet my concerns.
After some thought it seems clear to me that you have not rightly understood my
use of the term "deceit". As my letter went on to explain, the
Federal and State Governments (Qld, NSW, Vic) and Monash University, did not
previously, and have not since, drawn attention to the in principle
support for such research which was already going on (overseas) some considerable time before the
legislation was introduced.
We
agree these are highly controversial matters. I have no intention of debating
them here. (You can consult my contribution to Quadrant Sep 2002 if you wish to
be apprised of my views as a social scientist). But here my concern is that Monash University presents itself in
the forefront of a debate in which it fails to admit what it should have long ago
revealed. Monash's failure is an important part of the "deceit" I am
talking about. Thus I conclude that Monash is not at all in the forefront of
the debate, and your letter is problematic in that it confirms that Monash is
not wanting to promote debate on matters that it should have hitherto been the
first to reveal. You admit there are "different views and
interpretations" on the matters which occurred before the Prohibition of
Human Cloning Act 2002 - can it be left like that? Are these not matters for
serious debate?
It was
not Monash University or Professor Trounson who drew attention to the fact that
Dutch researchers were importing human embryos from Australia. That is a
neglect that Monash University (along with the Prime Minister and the three
eastern State Premiers) have not explained. They should have. But now, how is
Monash University to be taken seriously if in its pronouncements it does not
draw public attention to these facts which show its true position as well as
Government and institutional commitment to human embryonic stem cell research
long before the debate which preceded the legislation?
Yours
faithfully,
Bruce
C Wearne